Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

[Charles Richmond <richmond@ev1.net>]

Lee Hart wrote:
> 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > Of course, today's appliance computers have performance and
> > capabilites far beyond what those home hobbyists could produce back
> > then.  So if the capabilities and performance are what's important,
> > then today's situation makes you a winner: today you get much more
> > for a much lower price.
> 
> The staus quo will always be the easiest and cheapest solution. But, it
> doesn't get you any farther ahead. You just get comfortable where you
> are.
> 
Sometimes "status quo" machines can be re-targeted for different uses.
There were people who were taking the $200 internet appliance comptuters
and making them into *real* computers. That is, until the company figured
out what is going on...and made the fix impossible.
>
> > But if the capabilities and performance is unimportant and the
> > important thing is to construct something yourself - then why not go
> > ahead and do it?
> 
> You can... but it's gotten considerably more difficult. And, it
> continues to get more difficult every day.
> 
> I referred to a "golden age" for the electronics hobbyist. By this, I
> mean a time when as a kid, I could get broken electronics devices for
> free; take them apart and figure out how they worked, and then either
> fix them, or use the parts to make something else.
> 
> But, we've gone from plug-in vacuum tubes and a tester in every
> drugstore... to plug-in transistors that you had to test yourself with
> an ohmmeter... to soldered-in transistors that you could at least remove
> and re-use... to soldered-in ICs that are very difficult to remove... to
> surface-mount chips that are essentially impossible to replace.
> 
> Every aspect of electronics is moving through this progression. It's as
> if we had a ladder to climb up to become proficient in electronics, but
> have now decided we are so high we don't need any of those lower rungs,
> and have cut them all off. Fine for us at the top -- but what do people
> at the bottom do?
> 
I have thought about this sort of thing. My take is:  Things eventually
get so easy that they are *not* worth doing anymore. Having a radio
receiver used to be like that. At first, you had to buy batteries and
connect this large monstrosity with tubes to a headphone to listen to
the broadcasts. Then speakers and smaller radio receivers were made.
Eventually, radios became a commodity item. Then the transistor and
IC came along...now radios are so cheap and easy to use...that most
people have moved on to something else. Radios are *no* longer interesting.
(Notice, I am talking about regular radio receivers...*not* the ham
broadcast rigs.)

Something similar happened to automobiles...and to watches. All the
"gee whiz" has gone out of owning a car or a watch. It is so easy
to have one, and most people do *not* pay much attention to them anymore.

I think computers are going through a similar progression.
>
> > It's not cutting edge technology, but so what? The capabilities and
> > performance were unimportant anyway -- the important thing is that
> > you enjoy what you're doing.
> 
> Most of the greatest discoveries of mankind were made by people who were
> just fooling around, but had a dream of something better. Of course
> their first gadgets were crude, and worked worse than the alternatives.
> But if they kept working at it, improving it, and perfecting it, the
> world got a significant new invention.
> 
Also, mostly these inventors were *not* part of the main stream...and
they were *not* plugged in to the "that's the way we've always done it"
mentality. That's why the airplane had to be invented by bicycle mechanics.

On being asked "what good is this invention", they might say:  "What
good is a baby???" As Shakespeare said in "Troilus and Cressida",
the inventions are "the baby figure of the giant mass of things to come."
>
> > There are plenty of home construction projects you could undertake.
> > You could get into e.g. model railroading, ham radio station
> > construction, telescope construction, house building...
> 
> Quite true. All of these are well supported by hobbyists, clubs,
> businesses supplying parts, magazines, etc.
> 
> > And even computer construction: you could for instance build your
> > own Apple II -- the schematics are available, and the components
> > are standard components.
> 
> Ah, but this would be a vastly more difficult undertaking. The support
> structure to do it is gone. In the "golden age", you *could* build your
> own Apple II clone, better and cheaper than the original -- and many
> people did!
>
If it were advertised correctly, perhaps there is a market for electronic
kits...but on a much simpler scale than Heathkit. Something more on the
order of magnitude of the old Radio Shack "Electronic Labs". I have a TABS
book on building simple radios...that consist of probably no more than
20 parts each. In kit form, this might be a sellable item. The same could
be said for building 8-bit microcomputers and microcontrollers. 

Sure, a person can go out and buy the parts and books and do it all 
themselves. But with a kit, a person would have everything to do the
job right there...and he/she would get the joy of constructing the
item themselves.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Charles and Francis Richmond     <richmond@plano.net>   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+